Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 898 (MP)

Vijay Singh Kshatriya v. State of M. P.

2013-08-01

Rakesh Saksena

body2013
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the first information report dated 25.5.1996 registered by Police Chitrangi at Crime No.36/1996 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC and section 6 of the M.P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Aacharan Niwaran Adhiniyam, 1982. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the registration of first information report as well as filing of charge sheet against the petitioner on the grounds (1) that co-accused Tejbali Singh Parihar has been exonerated by this Court by order dated 24.1.2006 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.7310/2005, as the charge sheet so far as relating to him has been quashed; (2) that accused D.R. Sharma has not been arrayed as accused in the charge sheet; and (3) that there was no evidence against the petitioner. 3. According to prosecution, when construction work of Kudainiya percolation tank at Chitrangi was being done, the petitioner was posted as Sub Engineer in the Water Resources Department. He was incharge of the work in question. A complaint was received by the officers of the department that forged muster rolls were created after obtaining false thumb impressions of fictitious persons. It is said that on the basis of forged vouchers payments to fictitious persons were shown. Thereby the amount, said to have been spent on the work as per muster roll, was misappropriated. On receiving the complaint, on the orders of Collector Sidhi, an enquiry was conducted by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Deosar wherein it was found that after forging the muster rolls a huge amount of money was misappropriated. Thus, the offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC and section 6 of the M.P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 were committed. After enquiry, prima facie evidence was found against the petitioner and other accused persons therefore first information report was lodged against them at Police Station Chitrangi. 4. On perusal of the first information report, it is revealed that in number of muster rolls forged thumb impressions were recorded. In that regard, memorandums were prepared and the evidence of labourers were recorded under section 161 CrPC wherefrom it was disclosed that they had not applied their thumb impressions on the muster rolls. It is thus apparent that after forging the thumb impressions in the muster rolls the payments were made. 5. In that regard, memorandums were prepared and the evidence of labourers were recorded under section 161 CrPC wherefrom it was disclosed that they had not applied their thumb impressions on the muster rolls. It is thus apparent that after forging the thumb impressions in the muster rolls the payments were made. 5. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant time petitioner was posted as Sub Engineer in the Department of Water Resources and was incharge of the work in question. The aforesaid work had taken place between 1993 to 1995. 6. As far as the question that Assistant Engineer Tej Bali Singh has been exonerated by this Court by quashing charge sheet filed against him, it is relevant to note that this Court quashed the criminal proceedings against him only on the ground that there was no iota of evidence that in between 5.4.1993 to 2.6.1993 when the aforesaid work of percolation tank was done he was posted at Chitrangi. Since he was not found posted at the time when the offence was committed, he was exonerated. 7. As far as not filing the charge sheet against D.R.Sharma is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to what was the reason for which he was discharged. 8. On perusal of the material on record, I find that there is prima facie evidence against the petitioner. His prayer for quashing the first information report and the charge sheet filed against him deserves to be rejected. 9. It is also pertinent to note that earlier a similar petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing the first information report and the charge sheet was filed by the petitioner in this Court, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No.3570/2006. The same was dismissed by this Court on merit by order dated 6.7.2006. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this fact was mentioned by him in the petition, but this fact was not pointed out by him to this Court during the course of arguments. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, no ground to quash the first information report and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is made out. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. Petition dismissed. -----------------